IN RE: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

The plaintiffs—Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association—sought to settle all claims asserted against UniCredit Bank AG and its affiliates and subsidiaries. The settlement was set out in an amended settlement agreement dated July 11, 2023, and had received preliminary approval. The court conducted a final-approval hearing on April 19, 2024, after notice was provided to the proposed settlement class and class members were given opportunities to object or exclude themselves.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class consisting of people and entities that purchased or sold one or more euro-denominated European government bonds in the United States directly from a defendant, Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, or specified related entities or alleged co-conspirators, during the period from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2016. The definition included transactions conducted from or through a location in the United States, including transactions made through an asset manager, investment adviser, broker, or similar entity acting from or through the United States.

The court excluded defendants and specified related entities, alleged co-conspirators, the United States government, the judge and associated court personnel, and people or entities that properly and timely excluded themselves. Investment vehicles were not excluded. The court found that the class satisfied the federal class-action requirements concerning numerosity, common legal or factual questions, typicality, adequate representation, predominance of common questions, and superiority of a class action. It also certified the plaintiffs as class representatives and lead counsel as class counsel. The court emphasized that this certification was for settlement purposes only and could not be used as binding or persuasive authority on any later request to certify a litigation class.

Notice and Approval

The court found that the mailed and published notices followed its earlier orders, were the best notice practicable under the circumstances, adequately informed class members about the settlement and related matters, and satisfied Rule 23 and constitutional due-process requirements. The court then fully and finally approved the settlement in all respects, including the settlement amount, the releases, and the dismissal of claims against UniCredit. The opinion does not state the settlement amount.

Disposition and Effect

The court dismissed all claims asserted against UniCredit by the plaintiffs and other settlement class members with prejudice. The judgment and settlement bind UniCredit, other released parties, the plaintiffs, and settling plaintiff parties, including covered class members whether or not they submit a claim form or receive a distribution.

Upon the settlement’s effective date, the settling plaintiffs and covered class members release and are barred from pursuing the defined settled claims against UniCredit and the other released parties. Those claims include claims arising from or relating to the conduct alleged in the action, including certain claims that could have been asserted in an earlier related proceeding. The releases exclude, among other things, claims outside the specified territorial reach of the federal antitrust statute, claims to enforce the settlement, and claims belonging to parties whose exclusion requests are accepted. The judgment also releases specified claims by UniCredit and other released parties against the settling plaintiff parties.

The judgment states that the settlement and releases are not admissions of the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the validity of the claims, or wrongdoing by the released parties, and are not admissions that the plaintiffs’ claims lacked merit. The court retained exclusive jurisdiction over settlement administration, the settlement fund, attorney-fee and expense applications, distribution-plan matters, and other matters relating to the action. Separate orders were to address the distribution plan and counsel’s fee and expense application. If the settlement is terminated or never becomes effective, the judgment is to be vacated as provided in the settlement agreement, and the parties are to return to their earlier positions in the action. Judge Victor Marrero directed the clerk to immediately enter the judgment as a final judgment.